Audit of Nursing Homes and Denial of Payment Remedies - State of Ohio - October 1, 1999 Through September

Hhs Office Of Inspector General, Office Of Audit Services (Oas)

Informations

• Publié par: Chowyong
• Nombre de lectures: 42
• Langue: Slovak

Extrait

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  OBJECTIVES   The objectives of our audit were to ensure that the mandatory denial of payment remedy for substandard quality of care was applied to nursing homes that were not in substantial compliance with the prescribed Medicaid participation requirements and to evaluate whether State controls were adequate to prevent improper Medicaid payments to nursing homes under the denial of payment remedy.   BACKGROUND   This audit was initiated to address the general public concern with nursing home quality of care. Our primary focus was on measures for enforcing nursing home compliance with quality of care standards for Medicaid recipients. We audited denial of payment sanctions, which were in effect from October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2001.   Due to widespread need for nursing home reform, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. This legislation included the Nursing Home Reform Act, which ensured residents received quality care in nursing homes through the establishment of a Residents’ Bill of Rights and the provision of certain services to each resident. It also required nursing homes participating in the Medicaid and Medicare programs to comply with the requirements for standards of care as prescribed by Federal laws.   Title XIX, section 1919 of the Social Security Act established these requirements for nursing facilities, which are implemented by the State and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As part of these requirements, nursing facilities undergo an annual State survey and certification process to reveal whether a nursing facility is in substantial compliance with the Federal requirements.   FINDINGS   Although the State correctly identified nursing homes providing substandard quality of care and meeting the criteria for mandatory denial of payment remedies, the State did not have adequate controls to prevent improper Medicaid payments to sanctioned nursing homes. State surveys of approximately 1,000 nursing homes appropriately identified 13 that warranted the mandatory denial of payment remedy for new Medicaid admissions and 39 that warranted the optional denial of payment sanctions. We found that 46 of the 52 sanctioned nursing homes received Medicaid payments, while subject to the denial of payment sanction. Of these 46 nursing homes, 9 had unallowable Medicaid payments totaling $30,223 ($17,796 Federal share). The overpayments were associated with 2 nursing homes under mandatory denial of payment sanctions and 7 homes under optional denial of payment sanctions.        

i

 

RECOMMENDATIONS    We recommend that the State:   & Medicaid Services for the Federal share ofRefund $17,796 to the Centers for Medicare the unallowable payments.   ensure the timely suspension of payments to providers under theImplement procedures to denial of payment remedy.     In a written response dated March 19, 2004, Ohio officials did not agree with the reported amount of unallowable payments but did concur with our recommendation to implement additional procedures and agreed to take corrective actions. The dollar amount of overpayments was adjusted. The response is summarized in the body of the report and is included in its entirety as Appendix A to the report.    

                                   

ii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

     Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 1  Nursing Home Reform Act Requirements ...................................................................... 1  Denial of Payment Sanctions .......................................................................................... 1 OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 2  Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2  Scope .............................................................................................................................. 2  Methodology .................................................................................................................... 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................... 3 FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 3  Deficient Nursing Homes Not Sanctioned ……….......................................................... 4  Denial of Payment for Sanctioned Nursing Homes ........................................................ 4 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 5 RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................................................5 AUDITEE COMMENTS ……..............................................................................................5   OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPONSE ……................................................ 5   APPENDIX A – STATE AGENCY RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT                  

iii

 

INTRODUCTION

    BACKGROUND   Nursing Home Reform Act Requirements   Due to widespread need for nursing home reform, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. This legislation included the Nursing Home Reform Act, which ensured that residents received quality care in nursing homes by establishing a Residents’ Bill of Rights and requiring the provision of certain services and activities to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. It also required nursing homes participating in the Medicaid and Medicare programs to comply with the requirements for standards of care as prescribed by Federal laws. Title XIX, section 1919 of the Social Security Act, established these requirements for nursing facilities, which are implemented by the State and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.   As part of these requirements, nursing facilities undergo an annual State survey and certification process to reveal whether a nursing facility is in substantial compliance with the Federal requirements. Substantial compliance means a level of compliance such that any identified deficiencies pose no greater risk to resident health or safety than the potential for causing minimal harm. Deficiencies result from noncompliance or substandard quality of care in the nursing home. Facilities not in substantial compliance with these Federal standards of care are deficient and may have enforcement remedies imposed against them. Denial of payment sanctions may be imposed alone or in combination with other remedies when certification standards of care are not met.   Denial of Payment Sanctions   42 CFR § 488, subpart F, sets forth the regulations governing the enforcement of remedies against nursing homes with compliance deficiencies. The remedies imposed on a nursing home result from the seriousness of the deficiency, which is measured by the severity and scope of the deficiency. Certification of noncompliance means that the nursing home is not eligible to participate in the Medicaid program. The State survey agency must re-certify the nursing home for substantial compliance before the enforcement remedies are lifted. The denial of payment remedies are used for nursing facilities not in substantial compliance with one or more of the Medicaid participation requirements. There are two types of the denial of payment sanctions.   The first type of denial of payment pertains to new admissions for all Medicaid residents, whether considered an optional or mandatory sanction based on the seriousness of the deficiency. The optional remedy states that CMS or the State may deny payment for all new Medicaid admissions when a facility is not in substantial compliance with the Medicaid participation requirements. The mandatory remedy must be imposed, when the facility is not in substantial compliance 3 months after the last day of the survey identifying the deficiency or a facility has been found to have furnished substandard quality of care on the last three consecutive standard surveys. The State Medicaid agency must deny payment to the facility, and CMS must deny

1

 

Federal financial participation to the State Medicaid agency for all new Medicaid admissions to the facility (State Operations Manual, section 7506 (C) (2)). The manual definessubstandard quality of care   as: …one or m ore deficiencies related to participation requirements under 42 CFR 483.13, resident behavior and facility practices, 42 CFR 483.15, quality of life, or 42 CFR 483.25, quality of care that constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety; a pattern or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy; or a widespread potential for more than minimal harm, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm. The second type, requiring U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretarial approval, is the denial of all payments for all Medicaid residents. In instances of denial of all payments for all Medicaid residents, no payments are made for the period between the date that the remedy was imposed and the date that CMS verified that the facility is in substantial compliance with Federal requirements. Once the facility achieves substantial compliance, CMS resumes payments to the facility prospectively (State Operations Manual, section 7508).   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY   Objectives   The objectives of our audit were to ensure that the mandatory denial of payment remedy for substandard quality of care was applied in nursing homes that were not in substantial compliance with the prescribed Medicaid participation requirements and to evaluate whether State controls were adequate to prevent improper Medicaid payments to nursing homes under the denial of payment remedy.   Scope   We obtained information from the CMS regional office, State agencies, and selected nursing   homes as applicable. Data obtained included, but was not limited to: Medicaid paid claims information, nursing home admission and discharge records, select billing documentation, denial of payment letters, list of noncompliant nursing facilities, State nursing home surveys, and other support documentation as applicable. Our audit included denial of payment sanctions, which were in effect from October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2001. Our review was limited in scope. It was not intended to be a full-scale internal control assessment of the Medicaid agency operations. The objectives of our audit did not require an understanding or assessment of the overall internal control structure of the agency.  

2

 

Methodology   For the first objective, we determined whether all nursing homes surveyed with deficiencies were properly sanctioned for mandatory denial of payment. We reviewed all nursing homes that were categorized as providing substandard quality of care, but were not placed under the denial of payment remedy. We requested the CMS listing of nursing homes indicating substandard quality of care during our audit period and reviewed each of the annual surveys for non-sanctioned nursing homes with substandard quality of care deficiencies. In addition, we requested and reviewed the two previous annual surveys to determine whether the nursing homes were sanctioned three consecutive times for substandard quality of care that did not have the mandatory denial of payment remedy enforced or were not in compliance three months after the last day of the survey.   For the second objective, we obtained a State file of sanctioned nursing facilities with the denial of payment remedies and reconciled this information with CMS’s Long Term Care Denial of Payment Report. We then obtained the Medicaid paid claims from the Medicaid Statistical Information System to determine whether the State made improper payments to sanctioned nursing homes during our audit period of October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2001. The reconciliation was used to determine the total number of sanctioned nursing homes in Ohio with the denial of payment remedy. For the resulting list of 52 sanctioned nursing homes, we determined that 46   nursing homes were receiving Medicaid payment during the audit period. We reviewed admission records and select billing documentation provided by the nursing homes for the sanction period to determine whether the payments were for new Medicaid admissions and, therefore, subject to denial of payment remedy. Based on the State Operations Manual, Publication 7, we established whether each payment for admissions during the sanction period was allowable or unallowable. The payments were considered unallowable if the resident was a new admission to the nursing home, while it was under the denial of payment remedy. The portion of the claim(s) paid for new admissions during the sanction period was deemed unallowable.         The audit work was performed at the Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services offices in Columbus, Ohio from January to November 2003. Our review was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.   FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION   FINDINGS   Although the State correctly identified the nursing homes providing substandard quality of care and meeting the criteria for mandatory denial of payment, State controls were not adequate to prevent improper Medicaid payments to sanctioned nursing homes, as required in Title XIX, section 1919 of the Social Security Act and 42 CFR § 488. Out of approximately 1,000 nursing homes surveyed, the State properly identified 52 nursing homes that were out of compliance with quality of care standards. The State did not have adequate controls to prevent improper Medicaid payments for new admissions to sanctioned nursing homes.

3